pp. 339-345 | Article Number: mathedu.2016.037
Published Online: April 10, 2016
Article Views: 273 | Article Download: 373
The rational way (a mark, a test) of assessment of a school student’s perception of art contradicts the principles of personality oriented learning and reduces the interest of a child in fiction. In the article the problem of assessment of learners’ achievement in the lessons of aesthetics, namely in literature lessons, is solved. The author identifies the reasons for the lack of result in the research into the problem: the figurative nature of the literary text which accounts for the plurality of its interpretations, impossibility to define the criterion for assessment of free communication of learners discussing the work of art. The emotional nature of esthetic perception interferes with objective assessment of the reader's activity, and the children with a more developed sphere of feelings find themselves in a less advantageous position, than the children with developed analytical thinking, however not inclined to empathy. The author sees the solution to the problem by means of rating scales of assessment widespread in psychological diagnostics. Such scales should be developed by each class staff on the basis of their own experience of class work with a literary text, they will have a different number of criteria, but that will allow to do justice to every learner.
Keywords: education, personality oriented learning, assessment, work of art (fiction), discipline of aesthetic cycle, evaluation criteria, rating scale
Aase, L., Fleming, M., Pieper, I., & Samahaian, T. (2009). Language as Subject.
Alekseeva L. L., Anaschenkova S. V., Biboletova M. Z. (2009) Planned results of primary general education, 134.
Amonashvili, Sh. A. (1990) Personality-humane basis of the pedagogical process, 560.
Ananiev, B. G. (1980) Psychology of a pedagogical evaluation. Elected psychological works, 128-267.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1),5-25.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Granada Learning.
Buneev, R. N., Buneeva, E. V. (2010) Programm «Literature reading» (for a four-year primary school). http://www.school2100.ru/uroki/elementary.
Cizek, G. J. (2010) Translating standards into assessments: the opportunities and challenges of a common core. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Davidyants, N.A. (2011). How to estimate learning achievements without a mark? Primary school plus before and after, 11/11, 30-34.
Demidova, M. Yu., Ivanov, S. V., Karabanova O. A. (2009) Assessment of planned achievements at the primary school. System of tasks, 124.
Dorn, S. (2010) The political dilemmas of formative assessment. Exceptional Children, 76 (3), 325-337.
Dubois-Marcoin, D., Tauveron, C. (2005) Les frontières de la littérature telle qu’elle s’enseigne. Les frontières de la littérature telle qu’elle s’enseigne, 32/2005, 3-17. http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/reperes/RS032.pdf
Elkonin, D. B. (1989) Selected Psychological Works, 560.
Federal State Educational Standard of Primary General Education (2009). http://standart.edu.ru/catalog.aspx.
Fleming, M. (2007). The Literary Canon: implications for the teaching of language as subject. Osoitteessahttp://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Schoollang_EN. asp Luettu, 6, 2008.
Guzeev, V. V. (1996) Educational technology: from acquisition to philosophy, 112.
Guzeev, V. V. (1998) Assessment, ranking, test. Narodnoe obrazovanie. SHkol'nye tekhnologii, 3, 40-48.
Khutorskoy A. V. (2003) Key Competencies as a Component of Personality– Oriented Education. Narodnoe obrazovanie, 2,58-64.
Lazar, G. (2008). Literature and Language Teaching: A Guide for Teachers and Trainers. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Matveeva E. I., Pankova O.B., Patrikeeva I. E. (2012) Criteria assessment in the primary school, 127.
Matyushkin, A. M (1982) Psychological structure, dynamics and development of informative activity. Voprosy psikhologii, 4,5-17.
Michulka, D. (2005) Propos sur la lecture de la littérature et la culture: Entre obligation et liberté de choix. Les frontières de la littérature telle qu’elle s’enseigne, 32/2005, 53-73. http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/reperes/RS032.pdf
Moss, P. A., Girard, B. J., & Haniford, L. C. (2006). Validity in educational assessment. Review of research in education, 109-162.
Orsmond, P., Maw, S. J., Park, J. R., Gomez, S. & Crook, A. C. (2013). Moving feedback forward: theory to practice.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(2), 240-252.
Pieper, I., Aase, L., Fleming, M., & Samahaian, F. (2007). Text, literature and «Bildung». Retrieved July, 29, 2010.
Rouxel, A. (2007) Pratiques de lecture: quelles voies pour favoriser l'expression du sujet lecteur?. Le français aujourd'hui, 2, 65-73.
Sadler, D.R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18 (2), 119-144.
Sarmavuori, K. (2005). Au nord, bien loin de la francophonie. Les frontières de la littérature telle qu’elle s’enseigne, 32/2005, 17-31. http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/reperes/RS032.pdf
Vorontsov, A. B. (2002). Pedagogical technique of monitoring and assessment of learning activities, 304.
Yakimanskaya I. S. (1996). Student-centered education in the modern school, 96.